The LORD your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you. – Deuteronomy 7:22

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 30, 2018): Deuteronomy 7

While the end of World War II did not actually take place until Germany’s surrender in 1945, some believe that the seeds of the eventual German defeat can be found in 1942, three years earlier. The idea is that the Germans suffered from Imperial Overreach in 1942. They had taken possession of more territory than they could control, either from a military standing or an economic one. Specifically, while their hold on France remained strong in 1942, their expansion into the Soviet Union and Africa opened up places for possible counterattacks by the Allied forces. German expansion into Russia allowed the Soviet Union to stretch thin the German Army while concentrating their own forces, and while France was securely held, Britain and the United States were able to begin their offense against the German military machine in Africa, stretching the German army almost to the breaking point.

The Overreach of Germany also solidified the resolve of the nations standing against Adolf Hitler and his forces that the war could only end with the total defeat of Nazis. A diplomatic solution with the Third Reich was impossible because, if that avenue were taken, Hitler would continue to expand his territory throughout Europe. War would continue to be a fact of life in Europe until he was removed from the control of the nation. The Allies needed to agree to fight until the last man or until the point when Germany had surrendered.

Nazi Germany was not the only nation to suffer from Imperial Overreach. Other historical examples might include France under the rule of Napoléon, and Rome after the second century C.E. All expanded territory past their ability to exercise control.

And it is Imperial Overreach about which Moses is trying to teach the people before their entrance into the land that God had promised to them. What the people of Israel probably wanted was an easy path to ruling the land. God could, if he wanted to, clear the land of opponents before Israel even crossed the Jorden River and was able to set foot in Canaan. But Moses argued that that would create a power vacuum. The people of the land would be removed, but unless Israel could exercise military and economic control over the land, other people, or even the beasts of the field and wild animals, would fill the void. Instead, God was going to leave the land inhabited, and allow Israel to occupy the land “little by little,” governed by both their faith and their ability to control Canaan.

“Little by little” also describes the way that we grow spiritually. Maybe we would prefer it go all at once, but our holiness continues to be progressive in nature. We become more like Christ in small steps over time, piece by piece and “little by little.”

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 8

Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. – Deuteronomy 6:13

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 29, 2018): Deuteronomy 6

Thaddeus of Vitovnica, an Elder in the Serbian Orthodox Church, taught that “one should preach not from one's rational mind but rather from the heart. Only that which is from the heart can touch another heart. One must never attack or oppose anyone. If he who preaches must tell people to keep away from a certain kind of evil, he must do so meekly and humbly, with fear of God.” Admittedly, I find the teaching of Elder Thaddeus both daunting and appropriate. Often it is too easy to slip into the rational when it is the emotional, the understanding of the heart, that touches the lives of people.

Of course, I also come from a tradition that often seems to want to devalue the role of emotion in our religious belief. I grew up in an era that was dominated by a rational understanding of God. As I read the Bible, I still try to read with a rational mind. But as I teach, I need the continual reminder that behavioral change often comes from the emotions originating in our hearts, and not the rational thoughts of our heads.

Moses tells Israel to fear God. Nothing seems to affect our emotional well-being more than fear. It touches the deepest parts of who we are, and if you need proof of that, just take a look at the thrillers of all kinds that consume us both in the movies that we choose to watch and the television dramas that invade our homes. Fear is an important motivating factor in our lives. But it is not that kind of fear about which Moses is trying to teach. We are not supposed to be shrinking in fear at the thought of our standing in the presence of an Angry God. (I am not a big fan of the classic Jonathan Edward sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” I believe it sends a wrong message about God.) Moses is teaching about a deep respect that we need to have for God. When we fear him, it is our emotional response to the fact that we simply do not measure up to God’s standard of what is good. It is an inner revulsion that we experience as we realize our shortcomings, knowing how great and loving our God has revealed himself to be. And that response is a deeply emotional one.

And the idea of fearing God is not just a product of the Tanakh or the Hebrew Bible. Jesus spoke these same words to Satan when the chief deceiver demanded that Jesus bow down and worship him. “Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only’” (Matthew 4:10). Satan may have the ability to produce terror in our lives, but he is unable to demand the fierce respect of fear of which Moses was speaking. That kind of fear belongs only to God. It is an emotional response that belongs only to the loving God whom we serve.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 7

“You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. – Deuteronomy 5:11

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 28, 2018): Deuteronomy 5

Some years ago I participated in an all-night movie marathon with a group of teens. I had picked out the movies that we would be watching, depending on reviews and ratings, but hadn’t actually watched any of the movies (after all, I didn’t want to get bored and fall asleep in the middle of the marathon). All of the movies were rated PG-13.

But two incidents happened that night that has left me with a lasting memory. The first was that there was a nudity shot in one of the movies. Now to be clear, the nudity in question was a passing shot, probably about a second in time, of a boy’s bum. But it was there. It was the only nude shot in any of the movies that we watched that night, and it was the only time in the entire night that the Pastor decided to walk into the room to see how we were doing. He also then immediately left the room.

The second incident was a little more troubling for me.  One of the teens thought that it would be fun to rate the movies according to how many times someone swore. All through each of the movies, he would audibly record how many times the actors swore – as in, one swear, two swears, three swears – and he was a bit legalistic in his evaluation of what constituted a swear – dang and damn were both equal violations in his eyes as he counted the swears. I probably wouldn’t have noticed how many times questionable language was used in the movies except that I had a friend present to remind me.

The Ten Commandments is that classic list of the “Thou Shalt Not’s” (actually, only eight of the ten fit that category – but why mess with the popular conception of things). The idea of a law structure is not unusual – and this one was one of the first of which we are aware, but not the first. The Ten Commandments covers our relationship with God – and our relationships with each other. And maybe uniquely, it takes an active stance on both. God isn’t just worried about how you treat him – he is just as interested in the way we treat each other.

Probably the most misunderstood of the commandments is the third one – Thou Shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God in vain. We need some neat side effects when we say that – maybe a bit of an echo. The image we get is of a God who is looking down on us and is listening to our every word and counting how many times we swear, just like my friend at the movie marathon. The problem is that that is not the point of the commandment.

The commandment is actually aimed at how we treat holy things. The actual meaning is don’t say (or do) anything that will cause dirt to be thrown on God or on any movement of God. It is so much more than the occasional ‘God (or Gawd)’ that might escape our lips, it is a condemnation of how we think about God – and how we think about and act toward God’s community.

It means that a God-fearer (someone who believes in God) who enjoys sitting around and telling stories (gossiping) about other people is in danger of misusing the name of the Lord because they cause shame and dirt to be placed on God in the process. Some of our attitudes cause dirt to be thrown on the name of God.

Paul said that the gospel of Christ was offensive. And it is – but that does not mean that we should feel free to offend. When we are offensive, we are misusing the name of God. This isn’t about just swearing – but about the things that we do – the actions that we take.

The Torah is clear. Don’t misuse the name of God because he won’t hold us guiltless if we do. God expects us to protect him and his community. And that protection is active – is something that we purpose to do.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 6

See also Exodus 20:7.

He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. – Deuteronomy 4:13

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 27, 2018): Deuteronomy 4

I have admitted that I often struggle with the way that we treat the Law of Moses. Some Laws we find to be more important than others. The prohibition against homosexuality, found twice within the Holiness Code of Leviticus (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13), is a law on which we feel we need to make a stand. The prohibition against a man shaving the edges of his beard, also found within the Holiness Code (Leviticus 19:27), we feel free to ignore. Why? Part of the answer is, at least to me, unrewarding. From a cultural perspective, there is no comparison in the importance of the two issues. We are in a heated discussion over homosexuality in our culture, so this portion of the Law is important. We are not in a heated debate over the morality of shaving, so this portion of the Law we ignore (and just to be transparent, I did shave this morning, violating Leviticus 19:27). But that would also mean that it is our cultural experience that informs our understanding of the Bible, which violates the way that I have been taught to understand the Bible.

I am hesitant to make this argument, but I am increasingly questioning the possibility that my cultural understanding is more important in the way that I interpret the Bible than I might want to admit, and that this might have been true even in the Bible. And it is this cultural understanding, I believe, at which this verse might be pointing.

The first thing that we need to understand is that our conception of the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments is likely wrong. We often think of these tablets as dividing the Ten Commandments, with five Commandments written on each tablet. Or maybe even better, the first four Commandments, dealing with our responsibility to God, written on the first tablet and the other six Commandments, dealing with our responsibility to each other, written on the second tablet. But a better understanding might be that this was a treaty document between God and man. And treaty documents traditionally were produced with two copies; one copy held by the ruler and the one copy given to the people who make up the other side of the treaty. That would mean that God’s Stone Tablets were essentially carbon copies of the other, both containing all of the commandments.

The fact that these tablets were both placed in the Ark of the Covenant reinforces the idea that the Tabernacle was a place where the two parties of the treaty would meet, and that God intended to live among his people.

But this is where our understanding might become a little more radical. It seems from this verse that the only Law that God gave to Moses on the mountain was the Ten Commandments. This makes the other 603 laws (the Rabbinic teaching is that the number of Laws contained with Torah numbers 613, including the Ten Commandments) are notes of explanation on how to keep the Ten Commandments from a cultural perspective, understanding that God was walking with them. That also might mean that the 603 explanations might be held less firmly than the Ten given to Moses on the mountain (which would partially explain my shaving habits.) Or to say it another way, the Ten Commandments are standards that are not going to change over time. The 603 cultural explanations might change as our cultural understanding changes – or they might not. These are the things with which we need to be willing to wrestle.

Jesus would take this even a step further. 

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40).

If we are willing to Love God with everything that we are and love each other without limit, then we don’t need to worry about the Ten or the 613, because all of the Law will all be fulfilled in our midst.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 5

At that time I commanded Joshua: “You have seen with your own eyes all that the LORD your God has done to these two kings. The LORD will do the same to all the kingdoms over there where you are going. – Deuteronomy 3:21

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 26, 2018): Deuteronomy 3

Ljupka Cvetanova in her book “The New Land” writes “It's easy to write the history. All the eyewitnesses are dead.” Even if the eyewitnesses are alive, we will find a way to write our own version of history. And so the White House releases a video in November 2018 of CNN reporter Jim Acosta karate chopping the arm of an intern (the reality was that the video was sped up at that point to make the hit look very different from what actually happened). Or we spin conspiracy theories that take aim at events that we don’t want to believe actually happened (such as the Holocaust, or the moon landing). Politicians instruct us not to believe what we see because they think that reality is quite different from what our eyes might be revealing. Of course, we can always Photoshop the pictures to tell a different story. And in the process, we write, or rewrite, history.

Still, what we see holds value for us, if for no one else. We know our experiences. We remember. Of course, sometimes there are reasons why we don’t want to remember. In an episode of the comedy “The Big Bang Theory,” Leonard and Penny argue over their first kiss. As Leonard remembers it, their first kiss happened at a Halloween party. Throughout the episode, Penny maintains that their first kiss happened under different circumstances. That is, she maintains a different story until the end of the episode, when Penny admits that their first kiss happened at the Halloween party, just as Leonard remembers. Why was she maintaining the lie, when she remembered the truth? Because at the Halloween party she was drunk and the kiss was meaningless. And Penny wanted to rewrite history because she didn’t want their first shared intimacy to be a meaningless event.

Moses is trying to remind Israel of all that they have seen. Joshua is one of the older members of the nation, and one of the ones who had seen the most. And Moses wants him, and the nation, to remember what they had seen. Don’t let those who oppose you, or even your insecurities, to rewrite the history that you have experienced. You know how you feared Sihon, the King of Heshbon, and Og, the King of Bashan. You also know how they were defeated, and if you don’t, Joshua does. He was there. He is an eyewitness. And if God could do that then, what is going to stop him in doing the same thing when you enter into the land that God has been promised to you. 

The message is clear. You know what you have seen. You know what God has done in your past. So, knowing what God has done, why would you lack faith in what God can do tomorrow. It is a good question. And one that we need to answer for our own lack of faith because we are the eyewitnesses of what God has done in our lives. And even if no one else believes us, we know the things he has done in our midst.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 4

The Emites used to live there—a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites. – Deuteronomy 2:10-11

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 25, 2018): Deuteronomy 2

Paulo Coelho in “The Alchemist” writes that “there is only one thing that makes a dream impossible to achieve: the fear of failure.” I have to admit that I know that there are dreams in my life that remain unachieved, and the only reason that I have not pursued the dream is because of my fear of failure. But the fear of failure is not the only limiting factor. Fear, for any reason, can stop us in our tracks. But more than that, fear often becomes a weapon to be used by those who oppose us and wants to stop us from achieving our dreams. It is the reason for the intimidating words, tweets, and Facebook posts issued in our direction. Our enemies know that fear can stop us. It always has.

The reason Israel did not enter the Promised Land at the beginning of the wilderness wanderings was that they were afraid. They saw all that was good and positive about the land that God was giving them, but the presence of fear stopped them in their tracks. They were afraid of the inhabitants, who they viewed as giants, and who lived in and defended the land. Maybe they hoped that Canaan would be uninhabited and they would be able to walk into a vacant land. But that was not the case. The land was not only inhabited, but the ones who defended the land instilled fear into all who might want to enter.

We often emphasize the fact that there were giants that lived in Canaan, but what is lost in the narrative is that fear is actually the most important part of this story. The people who lived in the land were the “Rephaim,” translated here as “Rephaites.” It is the word “Rephaim” that is often translated in our Bibles as “giants.” It is because the Anakites were Rephaim that we believe that the Anakites were tall. The Anakites and the Emites were “Rephaim.” And while giant is part of the meaning or a possible meaning, it may not be the most important element of the word. The “Rephaim” were literally the “fearsome ones,” or the ones who caused fear. They might have been tall, but what was more important was that they were creatures from your darkest nightmares. The “Rephaim” were characters that would find themselves at home in John Carpenter’s (the director of “Halloween”) darkest dream.

Moses speech about the Emites has a point. The Anakites might still live in the land, but the Emites “used to live there.” The use of the past tense is important here. According to Moses, the Emites had been just as numerous and as scary as the Anakites. But the Emites were driven out by the Moabites, distant cousins of the Israelites. And Moses wanted Israel to know that if the people of Moab could take care of the Emites, then Israel could face their fears and drive out the Anakites, as well as whatever other nightmares might still reside in the land that they were about to enter.

Fear will always threaten to stop us. Our task is to make sure that it never does. (Yes, a message directly aimed at me.)

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 3

It takes eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the Mount Seir road. – Deuteronomy 1:2

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 24, 2018): Deuteronomy 1

American Philosopher Henry David Thoreau commented that “Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.” Obviously, there are different reasons for being disobedient, and different reasons for being held under the command of someone else. For instance, a lot has been made during the course of history about the responsibility of a soldier for their actions during times of conflict. A soldier is trained to be someone who is obedient and under the command of someone else. When someone higher up in the chain of command issues an order, obedience to that order is considered to be a necessity, and not necessarily the action of a slave. Unless, of course, there is something immoral about the order. For a soldier, it is only in response to an immoral order that liberty should be expressed.

The other reality is that sometimes we can express our liberty in a way that can only harm us. I would highly recommend that you not stand in front of a moving car. If you want to express your freedom by standing in the middle of a busy roadway, the cars barreling down the highway toward you might be able to miss you. But someone might be distracted or see you too late, and the chances are that the expression of your freedom might mean the end of your life.

Kadesh Barnea could be labeled as the place where Israel realized their freedom. They had been slaves in Egypt. In Egypt, there was no way for them to express their freedom. But at Kadesh Barnea, they exercised their collective liberty by saying no to a plan to enter Canaan and take possession of the Promised Land. And maybe that is the way that we need to view the Kadesh Barnea decision; it was the action of a nation exercising its newly discovered freedom and not a moral failure on the part of the descendants of Jacob. Because they did not enter Canaan, they became a nomadic group of people wandering the wilderness. Normally, a nomadic tribe this size could never survive; there just wouldn’t be enough food for the tribe to feed itself. But God was still walking with them, providing food in the form of manna from heaven every morning. They were free. And they chose forty years in the desert rather than trying to enter a land filled with milk and honey. This was the choice of a free people.

Forty years later the people of Israel found themselves eleven days away from Kadesh Barnea. They were going to the place of the expression of their liberty one more time. And one more time they were going to be given a choice. God desired that they would enter the land that he had promised to them. But the people were free. One more time, at Kadesh Barnea, they would face the same choice as their parents before them. They could choose forty more years in the wilderness, or they could enter the land. And no matter whether they chose to obey the directives of God or disobey them, there would be consequences.

Disobedience might be the foundation of liberty, but sometimes disobedience leaves us in chains. That was the truth of what had happened at Kadesh Barnea forty years earlier. And it was the possibility that Kadesh Barnea offered Israel in eleven days. But what was certain was that Israel was going to have to go to Kadesh Barnea and face that choice one more time.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 2

“Because he loves me,” says the LORD, “I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.” – Psalm 91:14

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 23, 2018): Psalm 91

Maya Angelou in “All God’s Children Need Travelling Shoes” remarks that “The ache for home lives in all of us. The safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned.” The ache for home never leaves us, but sometimes in our increasingly mobile world, home is hard to find. Maybe rather than a place, we should see home simply as Angelou seems to see it; home is nothing more than a safe place where we can show up in our pajamas or comfortable clothes and not be judged. No matter where it is that we find that place, it is home.

Psalm 91 is a psalm that we love, and yet it evokes many important questions. The psalm is one of the most comforting of the all of the psalms that we find in the Bible. The psalmist assures us that we can move into the unknown of the future knowing that he is with us and that God is willing to rescue and protect. But when it comes to authorship, we are less positive. The traditional understanding, and the interpretation that we are using here, is that Moses wrote Psalm 91 near the end of the wilderness wanderings. But that understanding is less than universal. Some of the imagery seems to match that of David, leading some to wonder if the psalm might not have been written by Israel’s poet-king.

But if Moses wrote it near the end of Israel’s time in the desert, then there is another reality that we need to understand. Moses knew that he was not going to enter into the Promised Land. But as he writes the psalm, he hears God’s voice of protection being spoken over him anyway.

Psalm 91 does not end with Psalmist speaking to God, but rather with the assurance of God being spoken both to the psalmist and those who would read and treasure the psalm. And here God promises that he will rescue and protect. Often we interpret that to mean that he would be present in our times of trouble. And there is no doubt that there is truth in that belief. God is present with us. But sometimes his way of protecting us does not match up with our desires.

And in the case of Moses, God’s protection did not mean that Moses would enter into Canaan with the rest of Israel. Israel would move into the Promised Land, but Moses would be excluded. His fate would be to die alone on a mountain on the wrong side of the Jordan River. Yet, Moses had heard the voice of God and had faith that God would be with him, honoring him in the final moments of his life. Ultimately, it didn’t matter where he was; Moses was going home to the safe place where he would be accepted. Moses knew that he had been accepted by the God that he had followed through the wilderness.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 1

No inheritance in Israel is to pass from one tribe to another, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal inheritance of their ancestors. – Numbers 36:7

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 22, 2018): Numbers 36

On January 1, 1949, James Thomas Mangan marched into the Cook County, Illinois Recorder of Deeds and Titles office to register a deed. It might have been the strangest declaration of ownership in human history. James Thomas Mangan was attempting to register ownership of the entirety of outer space. With the registering of the deed, Mangan laid claims to a new nation called “Celestia.” The purpose of “Celestia’ was to save the vastness of outer space from human mismanagement. Mangan’s “Celestia” was politely ignored by most of the significant powers of the world, but when Mangan unveiled the flag of “Celestia” in June 1958, a blue hashtag or pound symbol on a white disc flying on a field of blue, the flag, for a short time, was displayed at the United Nations along with the flags of other nations.

Mangan died in 1970, and with him, the dreams of “Celestia,” although the question that he posed continues to be asked today. Is it possible for one man, woman, or even nation to own outer space? During Mangan’s lifetime, the question was purely theoretical. Over the years since his death, it has become a more practical issue. Not only have we placed satellites and created a serious pollution problem along the only border that “Celestia” possesses, the one that divides space from the planet earth, but we have made intrusions into the Mangan’s nation. And, not that far into the future, we will begin to mine space of the riches and treasure that it holds; a treasure that will be a necessity to make up for the way that we have misused the riches of our planet. James Thomas Mangan wanted to protect space, and in all honesty, he might have been a better candidate for the role of protector than the corporations and superpowers which are likely to make that decision in the not too distant future.

The ownership of space is an important question. But it is also one that is probably unanswerable when we can’t even figure out ownership of the earth. Just outside of my office at home sits a globe from another era. Many nations are not included on its face. The globe still proudly declares the existence of the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” an artifact of our world that has been gone since 1991. Since the day that the Globe was created, borders have been repeatedly drawn and redrawn. No border, and therefore no ownership, of any space on the planet seems permanent.

In Israel, there was an intention to attempt to maintain the consistent interior borders of the nation. The land that the tribes claimed as their possession on the first day of the nation would remain in control of that tribe for the rest of the history of the nation. Specifically, it was not possible to move land that was contained within the border of one tribe and transfer it to another. While the law provided a way to transfer land from generation to generation, the claim of the tribe was more important than the claim of the individual. So when that came down to women who inherited land, they had to marry within their tribe, or else lose the inheritance that they had gained. None of this should be a surprise to us. Even in our temporary society, it is impossible for me to move the land that I own from state to state because of where I was born or the emotional ties I might have with another region of the country. As long as I am willing to be a landowner in the area in which my land exists, my ownership of the land is recognized. But as soon as I declare that the land that I own in Montana, is the property of Georgia, I lose the right of ownership and inheritance. By owning land, I have agreed to join a different tribe from the one I held identity to in the past.

And that process prevents anarchy that would exist if it were any other way. And anarchy might be the best way to describe Israel’s current state. Over three thousand years after the original tribal boundaries were set, those boundaries are gone, replaced with an uneasy alliance between Israel, or more precisely the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, and the Palestinian Authority which exercises control over vast swaths of former tribal lands. And even now, the borders continue to move.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Psalm 91

They will be places of refuge from the avenger, so that anyone accused of murder may not die before they stand trial before the assembly. – Numbers 35:12

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 21, 2018): Numbers 35

In the United States, California has a long history of providing sanctuary to those who are running from some aspect of the law. In the seventies, the movement provided places of refuge for those who were avoiding the draft and being forced to go to Vietnam. Today, the term Sanctuary Cities has much more to do with avoidance of immigration statutes and immigration enforcement.  Sanctuary Cities are places where the illegal immigrant can feel safe. And these safe places can be found in many of the Western States.

But the movement is not strictly a United States phenomenon. Sanctuary cities can be found in both the United States and Canada in North America, and Sanctuary Cities also dot Britain and the European nations. In September 2018, the city in which I live (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) quietly adopted an “Access Without Fear” policy when it came to undocumented and vulnerable people, essentially becoming another Sanctuary City.

However, the Sanctuary City movement is not without its detractors. For many, undocumented immigrants are a drain on resources. In a world where citizens want more than they can get, the idea that these undocumented people can have “Access Without Fear” means that they will get even less. We are not willing to give up our comfort and security to provide a safe place for people who we do not believe have a right to be here.

The solution between the proponents of Sanctuary Cities and those who oppose illegal immigration in any form might be the ancient idea of Cities of Refuge. In a world where family, and not the law, sought retribution for crime, Israel placed six Cities of Refuge within its borders. The idea was not that these were places where people could escape responsibility for their actions, but rather these were places where they could be safe against charges of violent crime that were either false or for a person guilty of an unintentional death. In these places of refuge, revenge could not be sought.

But the idea of a safe sanctuary was also not offered forever. It was a safe place to live until the crime could be evaluated before the assembly. If the accused were found to be guilty during the trial, then they would be turned out of the City of Refuge so that the family could offer justice as the law might allow. If they were found innocent or if the murder or violent crime was deemed to be unintentional, then they were allowed to live in the City of Refuge for the rest of their lives, safe from any retribution that the family of the slain might want to inflict.

In our contemporary society, Sanctuary Cities could serve a very similar purpose. For the purpose of immigration, people who enter the country illegally could find refuge in a Sanctuary City while they were in the process of applying for legal status to stay in the country. This refuge could be available no matter whether that status being claimed is on the basis of providing a valuable service to the country, or even on an application for Asylum on the basis of Political or Religious discrimination and the danger presented to their lives if they stay in their native lands. If they are granted access to the country, then they are legal immigrants. In North America, the societies of the United States and Canada are based on legal immigration. We need the world’s excess to feed our economies. But if for whatever reason, their claims are rejected, then they can be sent home. But until that ruling is established, a Sanctuary City could be a safe place for the immigrant to live, and a place where they can have “Access without Fear.”  

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 36

And appoint one leader from each tribe to help assign the land. – Numbers 34:18

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 20, 2018): Numbers 34

Over the past few weeks, I think I have heard the word “gerrymander” or its derivatives more often than I have heard the word used at any other time in my life. The word “gerrymander” finds its roots in an article in the Boston Gazette on March 26, 1812. The word was created to describe the way that the Massachusetts state senate districts were being drawn by then Governor Elbridge Gerry. The idea then, and now, is that a party can draw the lines so that they can win an election even if they have fewer votes by placing as many votes for the majority party in as few electoral districts as possible. The result is that the one with fewer votes loses landslide decisions in some districts, but wins closer elections in more districts. In 1812, the recipient of the gerrymandering was Governor Gerry’s Democratic-Republican Party. (Yes, for all of you Democratic and Republican Party members, in the United States you were once the same party chasing after very similar political goals.) Gerrymandering is one of the failures of contemporary politics. It is an attempt to sway the electoral decision in the direction of the ruling party, and possibly the reason why in recent history the United States has had relatively few one term President’s.

Politically, Israel was a theocracy organized around God, but where each tribe, made up of the descendants of each of the sons of Jacob, or in the case of Manasseh and Ephraim the grandsons of Jacob, had a say. Because the system was based on family ancestry and association, gerrymandering was impossible. Some have even argued that the tribes may have voted for who it was that should lead them, based on this verse which says appoint, or choose, one leader from each tribe. If there was a vote, it was likely much more informal than the way we think of voting in our contemporary society.

But the intention was that every tribe would have a say in the future of Israel. Here, the critical subject was the division of the land. It did not matter what the size of your tribe might have been. The largest of the tribes had more than twice the population of the smallest tribe, yet every tribe had the right to have one representative at the meetings of the country. Moses, and after him, Joshua, would stand as the representative of God and the nation.

In this manner, Israel would decide the important issues of the day, at least until the leadership vacuum that followed Joshua. After Joshua, the nation’s leadership would be more episodic during the time of the judges until the rising of the kings who would follow Samuel, which would essentially end the theocracy of Israel.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 35

The Israelites set out from Rameses on the fifteenth day of the first month, the day after the Passover. They marched out defiantly in full view of all the Egyptians, who were burying all their firstborn, whom the LORD had struck down among them; for the LORD had brought judgment on their gods. – Numbers 33:3-4

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 19, 2018): Numbers 33

I have to admit that I believe that the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt cannot be contained in a single event led by the law-giver Moses. For me, there are hints all the way through the story that this is not true. The Exodus was both an event and a process. And on the process side of the Exodus, the people of Israel had been leaving Egypt for a long time. Much like the story of Moses early life, they got into trouble or simply met with an opportunity, and they chose to disappear. The process side was likely just a trickle. An unconnected troublemaker here, or a family there, simply slipped away into the night, never to be heard from again.

Part of the reason why I believe this to be true is that when Israel actually gets to the Canaan and enters into the land that had been promised to them, they are already known and feared. Not only that, there is evidence that the inhabitants of Canaan, worshippers of other gods, know and fear the God of Israel. Somebody had been telling the inhabitants of Canaan the story of Israel and their God. And while there are a few suspects as to who those storytellers might be, the most obvious storytellers are the brothers and sisters of the former slaves who, in the dark of the night, simply left Egypt and began their lives somewhere else. These escapees from Israel likely adopted the practices and even the religions of those who already occupied the land but, when the darkness of the night returned, they told the age-old stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to anyone who would listen. And they banded together with other descendants of Abraham and Isaac, but not Jacob, who already occupied the land. Here they made their home.

But that is not to say that the Exodus of Moses didn’t happen. While those who slipped away in the dark of the night were part of the process of the Exodus, Moses was the main event. While the process of the Exodus was gradual and only involved a few of the people, the event of Moses was a “leave no person behind” proposition. When Moses led Israel out of Egypt, all of Israel left. And in the Moses’s led Exodus, no one slipped out of Egypt in the dark of the night as others had before them. Under Moses, Israel stood up defiantly and walked out of Egypt while the Egyptians watched helplessly from the sidelines. Under Moses, Israel left as conquerors, and not as escaping slaves.

And this event of the Exodus only magnified the stories that would be told in Canaan over the next forty years. Stories about this group of people wandering around in the desert. The knowledge of how Israel left Egypt increased the pride of those who had slipped away. After all, they too were members of this people. But it also increased the fear of those who worried that Israel would someday come their way. And all of this increased the mystery that surrounded these people who were once slaves.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 34

We will cross over before the LORD into Canaan armed, but the property we inherit will be on this side of the Jordan. – Numbers 32:32

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 18, 2018): Numbers 32

Supernatural Ministry author Kris Vallotton argues that “You can sacrifice and not love. But you cannot love and not sacrifice.” Love always requires sacrifice. You cannot move into a relationship and somehow think that everything is always going to go your way; that life will continue without compromise or sacrifice. And this is true about our romantic relationships and our platonic friendships. All relationships require some sort of sacrifice, or it is not really a relationship.

As the story of the Exodus of Israel draws to a close, the end of the journey comes quicker for two and a half tribes. The tribes of Gad, Reuben, and half of the tribe of Manasseh petition Moses to end their journey on the East side of the Jordan River. For these people, the journey ends here and now. They will build their new lives outside of the land had been promised to them.

But their story of sacrifice wasn’t finished. While Gad, Reuben and the half-tribe of Manasseh would build their homes on the east side of the Jordan River, they committed that the men of the tribes would continue on the journey with the rest of the descendants of Jacob. They would arm themselves, cross the Jordan, and for the next eight years, they would fight alongside their brothers for a land in which they would not have an inheritance. It would be eight years where the bulk of their time would be spent away from their homes and their families, and away from the building of their new lives on the other side of the river.

Moses’s original concern was that these tribes were simply repeating the error of those who had led the tribes before them; that they were afraid to enter the land and did not have the faith or will to place their trust in the God who had delivered them out of Egypt. But as the Transjordan Tribes, literally the tribes who settled on the other side of the Jordan from the Promised Land, make their commitment to arm themselves and cross the Jordan with the rest of Israel, Moses’s fears seem to be laid to rest.

Gad, Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh would make the sacrifice of spending time away from their families by crossing the Jordan with the rest of Israel. This is important, but not everything that Moses needed to hear. The rest that Moses required was that they would cross the Jordan into Canaan armed. Gad, Reuben and the half tribe of Manasseh would not be spectators in what was about to happen, but rather they would be active in the process.

We are still called to do these two things. We are called to cross into the culture that surrounds us; this is the land that God continues to promise us. We are to cross into the heart of our culture, not as spectators, but as active participants. And there will be a sacrifice on our part as we prepare to take the land.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 33

“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. – Numbers 31:15

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 17, 2018): Numbers 31

Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling commented that “There is an expiry date on blaming your parents for steering you in the wrong direction; the moment you are old enough to take the wheel, responsibility lies with you.” Blaming others sometimes seems to be a national obsession, starting with our political leaders and then extending down to the rest of us. Nothing ever seems to be our fault. We can always find someone else to bear the brunt of the blame. Parents, counselors, and even trusted friends become responsible for all of the ways that our lives have gone wrong. It seems to be a rare moment when someone stands up and says “this one’s on me. I did this, and I should not have.”

Moses anger at this moment is based on the idea that Israel did not take the women seriously, just because they were women. To the soldiers, the women were not a threat. And yet, it was the women who had tempted the men into sin, and it was the idolatry of the women that had caused the anger of God to burn against the nation. In the radical equality of the Bible, the women were responsible for their actions. And Israel needed to understand this.

The truth is that we are often tripped up by things that we don’t recognize as a threat. As a culture, we seem to have moved into an era when pragmatism and obtaining results is more important than taking a moral stand that reflects what we profess to believe. The church seems to be willing to lie to get what it wants on issues like abortion and end of life care. We are willing to ignore Jesus’s words about taking care of the weak and the poor to put a salve on our fear of the foreigner. What we don’t realize is that these concessions are changing who we are as followers of God, and it is changing the influence that we have on our society.

Pastor David Guzik sums up this passage with these words:

Though most Israelites thought these women were safe, they were more dangerous to Israel than an army of mighty warriors. Israel could overcome mighty warriors if they were spiritually strong; but if they were seduced into immorality and idolatry, they would certainly fall.

The words are important for us to hear in our pragmatic society. If we are spiritually and morally strong, we will prevail on every issue that is truly important. But if we trade our moral standing to win on what we consider to be important, we will lose – always. We need to be willing to be responsible for our own morality because we will most certainly fall if we fail to remain spiritually strong.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 32

These are the regulations the LORD gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living at home. – Numbers 30:16

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 16, 2018): Numbers 30

When must a woman obey her husband? I was asked the question recently by a young man who was in the midst of planning his wedding. I have to admit that the question caught me a little off guard. I turned my focus to him and gave him a lecture about marriage that is based on compromise. My argument was that in all things, a husband and wife have to be willing to have a conversation, or even an argument, about the important things of life. But in the end, both sides have to be willing to move to some middle ground, or if it is appropriate, agree that in this instance, they are going to have to be comfortable with the disagreement.

But my young friend was not satisfied. Surely there must be some issues, important issues, in which the opinion of the man takes precedence over that of the woman. And again, I argued that there just weren’t any issues in which the opinion of the man is more important than that of the women based solely on gender. In fact, the reverse was actually true. On the important issues, it is even more essential that a husband and wife find some middle ground on which they can stand together, even in their moments of disagreements. The reality is that there are times when either the husband or wife should have the final say. And these are on subjects on which one has some greater knowledge or expertise, and cannot be based solely on the gender of the participants.

And then there was my friend’s last argument; what does the Bible say? And the reality is that the Bible holds to three stages of womanhood. During the first stage, she is young and under the authority of her father. During her second stage, she is older and under the authority of her husband. And it is not until she reaches the final stage of her life that she finally reaches a point of self-determination. Self-determination only happens after the woman loses her husband, either because her husband has died or because he has divorced her.

But what we often miss is that this was a cultural understanding that dominated all nations at the time that the Bible was in the process of being written. It was just considered to be the way that the world worked. Today, we do not have that understanding. Our culture has changed. And that fact begins a second argument, does culture have authority over the Bible. To answer the question, we have to go back to the general thrust of the Bible. Is the biblical stance on the status of women consistent with the general thrust of its teaching, or is it a concession to culture and the hardness of our hearts? And I believe that, in this case, the second statement is true; these teachings about the status of women are concessions the Bible makes to culture.

To back that idea, let me highlight two scriptures. In the great creation story of Genesis 1, we have this statement.  

            So God created mankind in his own image,
                        in the image of God he created them;
                        male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27).

We are created in the image of God, and this is true of all of us, both males and females. The word “mankind” here is not a statement of gender; it includes both men and women. And this message is stressed by the apostle Paul. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). There is a radical equality between the sexes, an equality that culture has traditionally ignored. But if we want to know what the Bible says about gender relations outside of cultural forces, it is simply this – we are equal, and there is no difference in authority between us.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 31

On the fifteenth day of the seventh month, hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. Celebrate a festival to the LORD for seven days. – Numbers 29:12

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 15, 2018): Numbers 29

In the United States, Thanksgiving is only a week away. In recent memory, Thanksgiving is a day dedicated to turkey and football. (Every year I say that I am going to declare myself an honorary citizen of the United States at this time of the year so that I can take part in at least the watching football part – after all, I am one of a half dozen Detroit Lions fans in the world. And every year something seems to intrude on my time and destroy my plans. We will have to see what happens this year.) Thanksgiving in the United States has a dual focus. It is a time of celebration and thanks for the harvest, which has just recently been taken off of the field. But it is also a remembrance of the Pilgrims and other pioneers who made a number of sacrifices as they settled onto the North American continent. Admittedly, the historical element of Thanksgiving has been questioned in recent years.

On the fifteenth day of the seventh month, Israel was told to hold a sacred assembly and begin a week-long festival. Officially, the celebration is known as “Sukkot” or “The Festival of Tabernacles.” And like Thanksgiving in the United States, “The Festival of Tabernacles” has a dual focus. First, like Thanksgiving, it is a celebration of the harvest. It is a time to thank God for all of the provisions that he has given to the nation over the recent growing season. But there is also a historical component to the festival. It is a memory of the time that Israel spent in the wilderness, a time before they entered into and took possession of Canaan. During the celebration, the people left their houses and for the week camped outside in temporary shacks or booths. The booths reinforced the manner in which their ancestors had lived for the forty years that they had spent in the wilderness.

Sukkot was first commanded in Leviticus 23. What is maybe significant about the command is the timing of it. Leviticus 23 is at the beginning of the forty-year wilderness journey. This passage in Numbers takes place at the end of the wilderness journey. But what is important to note is that the events that Sukkot were meant to draw attention to had not yet happened. There had been no harvest in the wilderness. And the people were still living in their temporary shelters. At the time that the Festival was first mentioned, and even here as Moses stresses it, Sukkot could not be celebrated.

Here, Sukkot is a promise to the people. The day is coming when you will bring in a harvest of the things that you have grown which will support you in the winter months to come. The day is coming, when you will live in houses and these temporary tents will be a memory of a time long past. And when that day comes, remember and celebrate the harvest which God has given to you, and the guidance that God provided for your ancestors as he brought them through their journey in the wilderness.

A better day is coming. And that, too, is a reason to give thanks.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 30

On the fourteenth day of the first month the LORD’s Passover is to be held. – Numbers 28:16

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 14, 2018): Numbers 28

In Mythology, Sisyphus was the king of Ephyra, or what is now known as Corinth. Sisyphus thought himself to be wise. In fact, he valued his wisdom even over that of Zeus, the chief of the gods. Sisyphus’s pride was the root cause of his betrayal of Zeus and the conflict that the wise king had with the gods afterward. And there would seem to be no doubt that Sisyphus was wise. But his wisdom did not translate into power. And as a result, Zeus condemned Sisyphus to his own personal hell. Sisyphus’s punishment was that he was doomed to roll a rock up a steep hill, only to watch the stone roll back down again once it reached the top, and the Wise King of Ephyra had to start the process all over again, repeating the task for eternity.

The story of Sisyphus has been interpreted to echo the daily rising of the sun, which fades into the west only to start the process over again the next day, or a personification of the way that ocean’s waves continually rise and fall as they move across the face of the world’s seas. Plato, in his “Apology,” argues that Socrates looked forward to his time in the afterlife so that he could have a conversation with characters like Sisyphus. Socrates wanted to find out how wise these people really were, discovering who it was that were actually wise, and which of these mythical wise men thought they were wise when the truth was that they were not.

Sometimes reading through Numbers and Deuteronomy, we are reminded of the story of the Sisyphus. Moses repeats over and over again things that we have already heard or already know. Sometimes, it seems that reading these repetitive instructions of Moses resembles the task of Sisyphus and his rock all over again. We have already read about the command to celebrate the Passover elsewhere in the story of Moses. But there are two significant things that we need to understand in these words. The first is that thirty-eight years have passed since the first celebration of the Passover. Of those who were present at the first Passover, most have died. This is a new generation, one that maybe needs to be told again – and again – what it is that God expects of them. The second thing to keep in mind is that Moses understands that his life will end soon. This section of Numbers and the entire book of Deuteronomy form what are basically Moses’s last words to Israel. And so Moses repeats what it is that he, and God, consider to be important.

It is an open question, even with this repetition in the Torah, whether Israel had the wisdom to follow the repeated instruction of Moses, especially when it came to the Passover. There seem to be vast periods of time when the Passover was ignored in Israel. Which must make Moses feel even more like Sisyphus (and I know some Pastors who feel the same way). For all of his repetition, Israel still missed the point, and all that happened was that the rock rolled back to the bottom of the hill once again, waiting for someone to push it back up the steep slope one more time.  

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 29

“Say to the Israelites, ‘If a man dies and leaves no son, give his inheritance to his daughter.’ – Numbers 27:8

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 13, 2018): Numbers 27

The main purpose of the “Succession to the Crown Act of 2013” was to remove any gender preference in the order of succession to the throne of the United Kingdom. Up until that time, becoming a reigning Queen, and not just a Queen Consort who is married to the hereditary King was relatively rare. Any male born in the line of succession had preference over the daughters born in the same family, regardless of birth order. Under the old system, Princess Charlotte would have to take a step back in the line of succession behind her younger brother Prince Louis. Admittedly, because Prince George is the oldest of the children Prince William’s, it would still take a disaster in the family for her to reign as Queen Charlotte, but the chances of a Queen Charlotte were significantly raised with the “Succession Act of 2013.” And the current Monarch of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth, would never have reigned if her younger sister had been born a brother.

Not all monarchies are as progressive. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is decidedly male-dominated, and we should not expect a queen to emerge in that monarchy any time soon. In fact, it is arranged to favor brothers even before sons, although the heir apparent Mohammad bin Salman is the son of the reigning King.

In North America, it was not actually that long ago when a woman could not even own property without her father’s or husband’s consent, and the property at that point would usually have been placed in their father’s or husband’s names.

Taking all of that into consideration, this addition to the law is fairly remarkable. Thirty-five hundred years ago, a son was still favored over a daughter, but a daughter could still receive an inheritance even over the claims of a brother. And a daughter could own land and do with it as she saw fit. Eventually, even the determination of tribe would flow through the woman and not the man, although when this change was made is a current topic of disagreement. Some argue that matrilineality in Judaism stretches back to an oral tradition that originated when the law was given at Sinai. According to this definition, a Jew is someone who is born of a Jewish mother or who has converted to Judaism. Therefore, it is the mother, and not the father, who determines who is a Jew and who is a Gentile.

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 28

These were the clans of Manasseh; those numbered were 52,700. – Numbers 26:34

Today’s Scripture Reading (November 12, 2018): Numbers 26

“What does not kill you makes you stronger.” The much alluded to words are from Friedrich Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols” published in 1888, and more specifically from the “Maxims and Arrows” section of the book. I had a friend that rephrased the aphorism in sports as “If you’re not bleeding, get back out there.” At least, he told people that until he spoke the words to a good friend while they were playing hockey, and who tried to get back out there until he just couldn’t anymore. (Later, we found out that he had broken his ankle. Still, there was no blood.) Sometimes what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. But sometimes it leaves you demoralized, devastated, and unable to cope with life. The question is, why do some people react one way, allowing the trials of life to strengthen then, while others allow trials to move them in the opposite direction? However, that might also be Nietzsche’s point. Don’t allow the trials of life to demoralize you; make certain, with every fiber of your being, that you ensure that you grow stronger as you pass through the fire.

From a spiritual perspective, that is definitely true. Religion often gives us a way of dealing with the bitterness of life. It allows us to see the world differently. It gives us perspective on the trials of life, allowing us to grow stronger through all of the negative events that are guaranteed to come our way.

Israel is now closing in on the end of their journey. Within the next twelve months, they will enter into Canaan, the land that had been promised to them. It had been a long road, with many twists and turns. Life in the desert had not been easy. They had suffered many plagues and diseases. A generation had died in the desert. And now, as they prepared to enter into the Promised Land, they suffered one more plague.

It is at this point that Israel is instructed to take another census. They had taken a census before this ride had begun, and now they would take another one and evaluate the effect that the desert and disease had had on the people. I guess that most would have thought that through the trials, Israel would have grown decidedly smaller. But the effects of the desert and the plagues did not have a uniform effect on the nation. Simeon, for example, was devastated by life in the desert, losing over sixty percent of the tribe’s total population.

But for Manasseh, Nietzsche’s words rang true. Not only did the tribe not shrink, but the tribe expanded from the smallest of the tribes of Israel up into the middle of the pack, adding an impressive sixty-four percent to its population.

Admittedly, the Bible does not explicitly explain the difference between Simeon and Manasseh, but I have a hunch that the difference is the focus of the tribes. All Simeon could see was their agony and pain, and as a result, they were devastated. Manasseh may have been more willing to look beyond the pain of the current situation and see the hope presented to them by the God who was guiding them. As a result, what did not kill them, made them stronger.

Nietzsche would definitely disagree with my analysis, but it would seem that the philosopher’s words make the most sense when we maintain an existential hope for the future that is provided to us by our spiritual outlook, and our God who holds our future. If we can have faith in him, then there is no doubt that whatever does not kill you, will make you stronger (and what does kill you, will deliver you into his arms).

Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Numbers 27